Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
I forget, did the far left threaten financial collapse if they didn't get their way?
Did they shut down the government?
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
Brooklynian » Forum » Brooklyn Politics »
-
On false equivalencies, that are so popular these days:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/07/25/110725taco_talk_packer
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
First, the hostage-holding bank robbers asked for $10 million in cash and a helicopter ride out of the country. When those demands were met, they asked for another $100 million, a private Lear jet, free massages, and a signed note of apology from the SWAT team that was obnoxiously pointing guns at them during the negotiations.
The individual mandate, readers might recall, was originally a Republican idea, a crucial part of the GOP's strategy to preserve a private market for healthcare insurance and fend off the evil specter of true, government-provided universal healthcare coverage. But once Obama was elected, the notion that everyone should be required to have health insurance so as to make it economically feasible to cover, well, everyone, somehow became a betrayal of all that is good and decent about the United States of America.
It's also probably worth mentioning that the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Affordable Care Act has scored it as likely to reduce the deficit. This seems like a relevant thing to bring up in the context of a discussion of the debt ceiling. Boehner's proposed penalty is to scuttle a government healthcare reform that, on paper, is supposed to lower the deficit.
Well, heck, why not? If we are to believe current reports, Obama has agreed to significant cuts in Medicaid and Medicare without any quid pro quo except for promises of tax reform in the future. That's a huge win for Republicans. So why not go for broke -- why not gamble everything on knocking out the one triumph Obama can hang his hat on?
If we needed any further demonstration that the fight over the debt ceiling isn't really a fight about how to get government finances in order, but is instead simply about one party's determination to use the threat of economic disaster to wage total political warfare, then we have it now. Congressional Democrats are absolutely correct to be distraught at the direction this evolving mess is headed. But will they show the resolve of their Republican compatriots in the House and draw their own line in the sand? If recent history is any indication, the answer is no.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Boygabriel said:
I forget, did the far left threaten financial collapse if they didn't get their way?Did they shut down the government?
This retort will be more effective if and when the government is shut down.
Until then, the use of the threat has been more effective in getting the attention of the republicans and democrats since the debt ceiling was first sought in 1917.
The doofus Ross Perot sabotaged what was a good Prior effort.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Boygabriel said:
I forget, did the far left threaten financial collapse if they didn't get their way?Did they shut down the government?
Nah. But considering the spread between the growth of the costs of progressive programs and taxes, the end result of the far left's utopia would be the same. You can't rationalize entitlement programs growing at 8% year after year with the economy in a standstill, unless you are OK w/the eventual prospect of the gov't running out of money. And that's not to say the right is not guilty of this with their programs... the point is the "far" left is no less ridiculous or short sighted in their demands.
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
Oh and I was mistaken. Democrats did shut down the state gov't in Indiana- over collective bargaining rights of state employees (I forget the details). So yes, your party of prgress is no less apt to throw a temper tantrum & throw their constituents' daily concerns to the wind for politics.
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
Most significant changes we make are not by choice.
women and minorities were given rights only once those in government had to do so.
Ditto workers rights, and causes of the left and right I am too lazy to list due to the heat.
It is ok to corner you opponent and say:
A. I am serious, you need to stop this crap.
It is not ok to: B. kill your opponent and self.Sometimes they must fear B to believe A
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Cool The Kid said:
Oh and I was mistaken. Democrats did shut down the state gov't in Indiana- over collective bargaining rights of state employees (I forget the details). So yes, your party of prgress is no less apt to throw a temper tantrum & throw their constituents' daily concerns to the wind for politics.False equivalencies continue unabated.
Should we count the number of times each party has shut a govt down and compare?
What about number of times each party has shut the federal govt down? Newt Gingrich wants to have a word with you.
I don't dispute your arguments that social programs need to be reined in or restructured. I never have.
Most of the arguments I make actually aren't mutually exclusive to your arguments, I think you just don't like the perspective I come from.
The Republicans are threatening financial collapse b/c it's the only tool they're capable of using.
Part of the reason they can't get shit passed is b/c when it gets down to brass tacks many of the current Republican policy goals are actually completely untenable, unsupported by any reasonable economic theory, or just outright vindictive.
If they cared about the debt they would have supported health care reform.
Not only did the not support it, they're now RE-threatening financial collapse if Obama doesn't repeal what meager improvements he was actually able to get passed.
Obama and the Democrats in power are centrist in every sense of the world. They are willing to compromise over and over and over again. The Republican Party on the other hand is pretty much at the beck and call of its more extreme elements that are more and more divorced from any kind of rational or established philosophy.
The generalized false equivalencies are inaccurate. And it's sad I even bother defending the point, as the Dems are far from effective either. But right today they're a helluva lot more sane.
This debt ceiling "crisis" couldn't make things any plainer w/r/t to how each party gets what it wants, and what it is the party is even going for.
Obama & Dems: compromise
Repubs: lower taxes, cut social services, regardless of justification, debt is irrelevant (see: HC reform)Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Yes, it is all the fault of the republicans/democrats, depending on which party you are loyal to.
(yawn)
I, for one, am enjoying the tactics of a new opponent: The Tea Party.
Like it or not, the Tea Party will become a real player in this country if they can get the Gang of 6 proposals enacted sans shut down.
2012 might present the country with real choices.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Attn far left:
This is not the song you should play again in 2012
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Well friend, we choose to see what we want to see.
If you see Repubs faithfully negotiating for some practical policy end, I want some of what you are taking.
If you think tax and social services cuts are the answer to our woes, despite attempting that failed policy for the past 30 years, I DEFINITELY want some of what you are taking.
If you see any difference between the Tea Party and the libertarian wing of the Republican party of the last 50 years, then I am truly in awe of your x-ray abilities.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Keep playing "which side are you on". Someone will listen eventually.
...but is unlikely to be those in the middle.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Ah yes, the mythical middle ground.
I've heard rumors that it exists.
It's funny to think that 'centrists' would occupy the midway point between far right (Tea Party) and Obama (dead centrist), as opposed to being towards an actual middle.
The Republicans are led by the far right.
Democrats in office sometimes let progressives sit at the table, but usually not.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
I think that you break things down into one side or the other says a lot about your vantage point. More about that than how things actually are. We actually agree about a lot of stuff BG. But if anyone doesn't share your same fervor about social programs and reverse class warfare, they lean right. And we all know what you think of the right. It's a little childish.
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
You know what's even harder for people on the far left and far right to imagine?
...That there are people who vote for a "far right" or "far left" proposal based on whether they think it is what the country needs at a given point in time.
It's as if we think that different times call for different policies and that a pendulum is the only way to get moderation, whereas the extremists think the arguments of other side never have any value.
Crazy
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I actually never bother to label people right or left. Go back and read closely.
I argue my points based on the topic at hand.
I never ever say, "Policy X sucks b/c it was proposed by a Republican"
I explain why I think the policy sucks.
That's the fundamental flaw with writing everything off as "partisan" and automatically valuing "the middle" simply b/c it's "the middle".
The middle between a terrible idea and a good idea leaves you at a pretty bad idea.
See: Health Care "reform"
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Cool The Kid said:
I think that you break things down into one side or the other says a lot about your vantage point. More about that than how things actually are. We actually agree about a lot of stuff BG. But if anyone doesn't share your same fervor about social programs and reverse class warfare, they lean right. And we all know what you think of the right. It's a little childish.And FWIW, in this thread and some others I've been making a point of assigning responsibility to one side or the other b/c I very deeply (edit: do not agree) with WN's general belief that both sides are equally to blame, or however he would like to phrase it.
Generally speaking I'm not as interested in which party said what. I'm interested in how bad or good the idea itself is.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
So, why do think the Gang of 6 proposal sucks?
Other than it cuts too much from entitlements and not enough from defense. Other than it does not contain enough tax increases?
What differentiates you from the blind rhetoric of the left?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
So, why do think the Gang of 6 proposal sucks?Other than it cuts too much from entitlements and not enough from defense. Other than it does not contain enough tax increases?
Other than my main objections to its main (old, tired) strategies?
Um...
I'm not sure how much more there is for me to say.
What differentiates you from the blind rhetoric of the left?
I wouldn't know and I don't care. That's for you to label and write off as you see fit.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Oh, there is another thing I can add to the Go6's proposal:
Its unnecessary cuts on SS, which doesn't contribute our debt and is solvent for like 30 more years at least.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Boygabriel said:
Generally speaking I'm not as interested in which party said what. I'm interested in how bad or good the idea itself is.It just so happens that all progressive ideas happen to be good, and all non-progressive ideas happen to be bad, I suppose. It's in vogue for ideological groups to hide behind the guise of neutrality or a vague notion of what is best for the country. In that actually progressives and the Tea Party share a common thread. But the reality is, many of these groups are bent on benefitting some at the expense of others. The prospect of actual fairness & accountability frightens them. You yourself have digitally dry heaved in response to the idea of a flatter tax system. And even in the face of gov't studies examining the habits of the poor you refuse to factor the vast array of variables they have control over into your equation. You've also stated things to the effect of "all Republicans are evil from the middle to the end". So I am not even sure you believe that.
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
It just so happens that all progressive ideas happen to be good, and all non-progressive ideas happen to be bad, I suppose.
Sure. Who knows. You're the one digging the labels.
I'm liberal. I'm left-leaning. I'm progressive. I try to think about every issue I comment on and have a reason for thinking the way I do.
What you're essentially implying is that I pick my opinions based on where they come from.
This is total b.s.
But the reality is, many of these groups are bent on benefitting some at the expense of others.
Yes, unequivocally. Philosophically I think the rich don't contribute enough.
This is my belief. I can explain it. I am not a mindless socialist or someone who irrationally hates the rich.
If you think I think that way, just stop reading my posts now.
The prospect of actual fairness & accountability frightens them. You yourself have digitally dry heaved in response to the idea of a flatter tax system. And even in the face of gov't studies examining the habits of the poor you refuse to factor the vast array of variables they have control over into your equation.
Seriously dude? You're still trying to claim I don't place some responsibility with individuals?
Give me a f-cking break.
You've also stated things to the effect of "all Republicans are evil from the middle to the end". So I am not even sure you believe that.
What?
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Could you be friends with a republican or a Tea Party member?
Are they moral?
...are moderates evil too?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Boygabriel said:
It just so happens that all progressive ideas happen to be good, and all non-progressive ideas happen to be bad, I suppose.
Sure. Who knows. You're the one digging the labels.
I'm liberal. I'm left-leaning. I'm progressive. I try to think about every issue I comment on and have a reason for thinking the way I do.
What you're essentially implying is that I pick my opinions based on where they come from.
This is total b.s.
Is it really? You didn't dry heave at the sight of the Heritage Foundation report I posted, despite it citing a gov't study?
Yes, unequivocally. Philosophically I think the rich don't contribute enough.This is my belief. I can explain it. I am not a mindless socialist or someone who irrationally hates the rich.
If you think I think that way, just stop reading my posts now.
I have outlined time and time again w/references, etc, what the rich contribute vs the rest of the country. You can believe it "philosophically" as much as you want, but it's simply not true. And even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even consider anything beyond your belief. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have some beef with the rich.
Seriously dude? You're still trying to claim I don't place some responsibility with individuals?
Give me a f-cking break.
Oh you do, to maintain the appearance of impartiality etc. It's equivalent to the racist white dude throwing out the "hey now I have a black friend!" But it's of no consequence, as you don't deem the actions of the poor as "the" or even "a" major factor in the cycles of poverty. And when it gets brought up, it's written off as completely blaming the poor... 'bootstrapping'. It's a very good talking point mechanism but I see through it.
What?
Boygabriel said:
Tea PartyRepublicanThe left is granular & textured, the right is represented by whatever singular figure you happen to be angry with at a given moment...
How delightfully boring
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
CTK:
Is it really? You didn't dry heave at the sight of the Heritage Foundation report I posted, despite it citing a gov't study?
Yes, I did. I have already read about that "report" and I think it is meritless.
I apologize for not responding more in depth. That was lazy of me.
I have outlined time and time again w/references, etc, what the rich contribute vs the rest of the country. You can believe it "philosophically" as much as you want, but it's simply not true. And even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even consider anything beyond your belief. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have some beef with the rich.
You have argued your side and I have argued mine. But the idea that you've shown that something is "simply not true", beyond any doubt, is a joke.
Believe it or not, I'm familiar with arguments in favor of cutting taxes, or taxing the poor more. Even before I heard them from you.
Arguments exist. Doesn't make them right. Certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
Oh you do, to maintain the appearance of impartiality etc. It's equivalent to the racist white dude throwing out the "hey now I have a black friend!" But it's of no consequence, as you don't deem the actions of the poor as "the" or even "a" major factor in the cycles of poverty. And when it gets brought up, it's written off as completely blaming the poor... 'bootstrapping'. It's a very good talking point mechanism but I see through it.
Um, ok.
The left is granular & textured, the right is represented by whatever singular figure you happen to be angry with at a given moment...
How delightfully boring
What are you talking about?
Are you mad that I equate the Tea Party with mainstream Republicanism?
Because that is a topic I would be HAPPY to discuss for hours.
There are few things I'm more fascinated by right now than what a sham the Tea Party is.
See what I did there? Let's actually debate an argument I made, rather than making assumptions about what I think about the granular nature (?) of the Democratic Party.
Just for future reference: I don't think about the Democratic Party much. Mostly I will defend them against the idea that they're as 'bad' as Republicans, which WN is so fond of. But generally I am not a fan of Democrats, so when you have theories that I'm biased in favor of Dems: your theory is probably wrong.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Yea this has become boring again. Reality is what you make it BG I wish you the best.
[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
BG » Republicans, which WN is so fond of
BG-
I've voted for a republican only once in my life; The democrats were running an idiot....but stay on the left.
Keep imagining me as your opponent.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Cool The Kid said:
Yea this has become boring again. Reality is what you make it BG I wish you the best.I know man, you present all these inarguable viewpoints and yet I stay stuck in my reality.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Boygabriel said:
I know man, you present all these inarguable viewpoints and yet I stay stuck in my reality.be careful, he makes his points a lot more coherently than you make yours.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
BG » Republicans, which WN is so fond of
BG-
I've voted for a republican only once in my life; The democrats were running an idiot....but stay on the left.
Keep imagining me as your opponent.
WN, don't confuse me disagreeing with you with thinking you're my opponent.
Also, I wasn't saying you're fond of Repubs, I said you're fond of the idea that in general Dems and Repubs share equal responsibility, ineffectiveness, etc etc
Mostly I will defend them against the idea that they're as 'bad' as Republicans, which WN is so fond of.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
You have done nothing to convince me that Democrats are less culpable.
You have only convinced me you like them to a fault.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
be careful, he makes his points a lot more coherently than you make yours.I don't doubt that you believe that.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
whynot_31 said:
You have done nothing to convince me that Democrats are less culpable.You have only convinced me you like them to a fault.
You're very convinced of the equivalence of Dems & Repubs, so it is what it is.
Moving people's opinions is indeed difficult, isn't it?
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Asserting that one political party is virtuous, while trying to paint the other as jerks may be the most difficult task of all.
It amazes me you bother to try.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Hey hey, I didn't say anyone was virtuous.
The past few days I've been arguing:
1. Dems and Repubs do not share equal culpability. In a great many areas there are noticeable differences. (and in some other crucial ones, there are none.)
2. Republicans' use of threatening financial catastrophe is dangerous and the opposite of 'leadership'
3. Republicans' current economic and taxation policies in the face of a depression and bad unemployment are detached from any major accepted economic theory.
4. The Republicans are not serious about our debt, and are only using it as a bludgeon to get what they always want: fewer taxes and fewer social servicesSpend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
sounds like you wish to carry on business as usual.
...that is no longer an option.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
No, it most certainly is an option.
There was nothing that said THIS, July 2011, is the one time we have to not raise the debt ceiling.
Rather, we could raise the debt ceiling like we have 89 times in the past, and then have a more constructive, methodical national discussion of how to transition our economy to something more sustainable.
Also, if the new way of being is $4,000,000,000,000 in cuts and no raise in revenue, whether through loopholes, taxes, the super-wealthy, or estate taxes, then yeah, I might choose our unsustainable (according to you) path.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
your right, lets raise it again without changing course, or even trying to address the systemic problems that got us here.
See you here in a few years? ...when we are more in debt?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Correct.
Let's work on austerity when unemployment is a little better, the economy is better, and Americans are better positioned to make sacrifices.
The 2000s would have been good time to do it. But what did we do? Cut services and taxes. Where did that get us, by the way? And where were all these concerned Americans then?
Attempting radical "readjustment" during one of the worst recessions in the last 100 years is a cruel joke.
A big source of our debt is the economic downturn. We have a stagnant economy, companies sitting on piles of cash, and doing no hiring.
Why?
No demand.
Why?
People are unemployed or underemployed.
What can break the cycle?
Gov intervention.
What are you arguing for? The exact opposite of that.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
You are stating the same thing the left has stated since Feudal period:
"There is never a good time to cut entitlements, it is always a good time to put more taxes on the wealthy"
(yawn)For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
That's not actually an argument to counter my points.
I'm open to hearing why now, July 2011, is the right time.
Ready?
Go:
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Because it will only be harder to do in the future.
Ready? respond
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I've stated why now is not the time.
We need more govt spending right now (jobs, infrastructure, small business breaks) not less.
When we're out of the recession, hack away my friend.
In terms of debt policy, the recession does not matter to you.
It appears I have hit upon the crux of our differing views.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
you win.
let's postpone this for the future. I'm sure time will fix everything.
I don't know what I was thinking.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I was agreeing to disagree, but do what you wanna do.
I don't see the urgency for July 2011. Urgency that was dead silent for the past decade. Urgency that we simply can't afford to make things a little harder by tackling this in 2013 or 2015 instead, while we give the economy time to recover.
You do see this July 2011 urgency, and I guess it just wasn't worth discussion in years past, whether here or in congress.
It's ok for us to disagree. No need to concede in a hail of sarcasm.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
I have let you win
It is bad form to gloat.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
It takes more effort to debate actual points, doesn't it?
And it's frustrating when people don't agree with your POV, isn't it?
Now I get why you write me off as a far-lefty so often: It requires minimal effort on your part.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
you have won. You are being rude now.
Just take the trophy and go home.
....I, along with others, will run the country while you are studying the words to The Internationale
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I don't know what that means, but presumably another 'far-lefty' shot?
I guess you can fall back on what you know how to do best.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Dude, I'm all about compromise.
I'm just trying to help you blend in with those who aren't.
Trust me, you will need to know this song if you are not going to compromise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWiY1i4E21k
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!